It failed, however, to mention what this bill is really about. In its fervor to attack men and fathers, it is really about attacking a mythical concept called the “patriarchy.” According to gender feminists, all women are victims of the patriarchy. Every ill suffered by women in society is a result of the “power and control” exerted over them by a conspiracy of men.Of course, no mention is made of the research done by the vast majority of serious scholars of this topic, all of whom conduct their studies based on scientific evidence, as opposed to the angry and misandrist ideology of the contemporary feminist victim cult. This research, by such leading scholars as Dr. Don Dutton and Christina Hoff Sommers, demonstrate clearly that in fact women instigate domestic violence more often than men. Presumably, this information is withheld from the public’s view by politicians and the media because it disproves the very theory and ideology that is used as an excuse for VAWA. And, all parties involved know that VAWA sells.

The bottom line of the new version of VAWA is that it will gratuitously provide more money to the industry that has built up around shattering the lives of men and fathers. More money for “advocates” who work hard to convince any woman that comes into their webthat they are a victim of domestic violence. More money for GALs in family courts who operate with the sole purpose of stripping fathers of access to their children, which amazingly they do even when the mother does not want to go that far. More money for domestic violence “experts” who troll police departments to ensure that officers only arrest men no matter what the circumstances they find after a 911 call.

Indeed, more money all the way around so that graduates of women studies programs can earn a salary practicing the hateful ideology they learned from activists and generally socialist professors.

In reality, VAWA is a blatant pander to the most extreme gender feminists in our country. It is surprising that Hatch and Specter would support it, but one can only assume that their political calculation shows they can wrap it in the myths and spin it to their benefit.

Republicans such as Hatch seem to have fallen into a trap set by Biden to alienate their party from men and fathers. The involvement of Republicans reaffirms that men and fathers do not have a friend in either of the major parties. Blacks are often criticized for giving their votes so freely to Democrats, who would not know what to do if blacks in our country actually started exercising their voice, which is often conservatively Christian. But, men should be equally criticized for giving their votes in such large proportions to Republicans. For all their bluster about traditional family values, your average Republican is no friend of men or fathers.

You cannot count on the few local Republicans in the Seattle area either. Using the political calculation that he can benefit from his alignment with fighting the patriarchy in liberal King County, Representative Dave Reichertis a major proponent of VAWA. You can be sure he will vote for the reauthorization of this horrible legislation and then come home to boast about it.

The public needs to know that the topic of domestic violence was hijacked by radical feminists in the mid-1990s when they were running out of causes and loosing relevance in a society that long ago opened opportunities to women. Men need to know that the Republicans they too often vote for are complicit, even some of the chief promoters, of painting them as violent mongrels in need of social reeducation.

The public also needs to know that gender feminists, who clearly run the VAWA show, do not care about helping those, not even women, that are trapped in violent relationships. They do not care about the fact that their domestic violence perpetrator “treatment” gulags, which are based on the Duluth model of patriarchal control over women, do nothing to prevent domestic violence. They do not care that false claims of domestic violence are as frequent as tears on an Oprah Winfry show and are the number one tactic in divorce proceedings. Their only objective is to force as many men as possible into anti-patriarchy reeducation. Ultimately, they want to force men and fathers into a position of insecurity and, ideally, to abandon the idea of marriage altogether.

Men in their thirties in King County apparently are responding to this attack. As of 2000, 46% of men in the county in their thirties had never been married. Only 33% of women in their thirties had never been married, demonstrating that they are still hungry for love and commitment. But, with the burgeoning membership of dating services by women in their 40s, and fewer and fewer men willing to risk their physical and economic liberty with marriage, these women are increasingly left to lead their lives alone.

2 Comments:

VAWA, please. . . . Like violence against women is more important than any other kind of violence. We already have laws on the books for domestic violence, but here we go again with special rights given to women!

Maybe I should lobby for:Violence against ChildrenViolence against DoggiesViolence against NeighborsViolence against Police OfficersViolence against Pro AtheletesViolence against Motoristsneed I go on. . . ?

How do they justify "strengthening" VAWA? Can we compare the pre-VAWA DV stats with post-VAWA? I bet the post-VAWA stats are higher, which could go a long way in proving our point. Did VAWA save Lacy Peterson? Did it save Crystal Brame? More likely VAWA made the environment where those men felt they had no other choice. I think VAWA creates more victims. Some real and more fake. But isn't that what they want? They need more victims to feed the machine.

Links to this post:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This web log contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding and increase awareness of marriage, family, couples, divorce, legislation, family breakdown, equality, gender bias, etc.
We understand this constitutes a 'fair use' of such material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.